Hi, >>> This should actually merge through MFD subsystem. >>> I take it you are only looking for a review here. >>> >>> >>> >> Sorry. I don't quite understand what you mean here. I thought I made it >> a MFD driver. >> > > The path for this driver to reach Linus's kernel is not through > Kevin's tree (DaVinci GIT tree), but through MFD subsystem tree. > Have a look at MAINTANIERS file for information about who > maintains the mfd tree. Kevin only sends arch/arm/mach-davinci/* > changes to Linus. > > What shall I do then? >> >> Seems some time ago the file was dm355evm, obviously it was renamed later. >> You are right this driver is mostly a cut and paste of dm355 evm, but >> the thing is >> 1. This neuros osd2 board is a descendant of dm6446 evm board not dm355 >> and I don't know how good it is to mix both in one file. >> > > IMO, as long as the code still makes sense, we can mix them > in one file. > > I can do it. Shall this code keep the name dm355evm_msp then? May be it shall be renamed to davinci_msp?
>> 3. Also having routines named as dm355evm_msp in board which is actually >> OSD2 can confuse, don't you agree? Otherwise the whole dm355evm_msp code >> would be an entire #ifdef on each line. So I think it would be better to >> keep code separately. >> > > Having routine names which match board names is nice > but not necessary for functionality. This happens a > lot of times when it is impossible to guess what the > file will end up getting used into when it is first > written. You could also first update the code to use > some generic naming before adding osd2 support. > > Is it alright to rename routines and files which I don't actually maintain, but just add a piece of code? If so, it's OK with me as long it satisfies maintainers. -- Best regards Andrey A. Porodko _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
